English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 93779/124226 (75%)
Visitors : 28878993      Online Users : 473
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/49916

    Title: 自由的行政裁量與受限的法拘束力—大法官會議解釋的個案分析
    The Impossibility of Legal Constrain on Bureaucratic Discretion: A Case Study of Supreme Court Rulings
    Authors: 林俞君
    Lin, Yu-Chun
    Contributors: 陳敦源
    Lin, Yu-Chun
    Keywords: 大法官會議解釋
    Supreme Court Rulings
    administrative discretion
    public choice
    principle-agent theory
    administrative decree
    Date: 2008
    Issue Date: 2010-12-09 13:45:04 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本研究透過公共選擇途徑,檢視行政機關面對主管之行政命令遭大法官會議宣告違憲後的裁量行為,藉此瞭解行政機關面對司法審查的制衡監督,將表現出哪些樣態的裁量模式;並藉由公共選擇途徑關於理性自利人的假設,以「交易」的概念連結行政與法律,以補充兩者過去缺乏交集、各說各話的現象。
    This research intends to answer the question of “how Supreme Court Rulings have impacts on bureaucratic discretion?” As the superior judicial review authority, Supreme Court Rulings are usually thought as an authority which bureaucrats must obey. Is it really the case? In this research, both bureaucrats and Supreme Court are seen as rational actors who have preferences over different outcomes, as the Public Choice theorists usually depict. Author utilizes public choice theory to bridge the gap between the fields of public administration and public law on the issue..
    Empirically, this study collects the administrative decrees which were announced unconstitutional by Supreme Court before the end of 2008 in Taiwan. Sixty-six Supreme Court Rulings are found and categorized into four groups by two dimensions: (1) whether the grand judges give the bureaucrats discretion and (2) whether the bureaucrats follow the grand judges’ will to reform the decrees. Both secondary data analysis and in-depth interviews are used in this research to figure out bureaucrats’ preference and the way they respond to the grand judges’ decisions. The statistical result shows that after been announced unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, about 15% of the administrative decrees stay the same. The reasons for this “unresponsiveness” to the Supreme Court Rulings are varied case by case. Basically speaking, bureaucrats take laws as means to fulfill their tasks. They are not motivated to follow the rule of law if there is a requirement to pay an excessive costs to achieve the policy goals. It is interesting to know that judicial review is high on its moral ground but sometimes it is a mechanism without an administrative devises to enforce their rulings. Also, the problems of information asymmetry, multi-principle and multi-agent will also be found in the relationship between Supreme Court and bureaucrats.
    To sum up, on the one hand, this research has shown that to follow the rule of law is not bureaucrats’ priority. As a result, an administrative mechanism is needed to enforce the Supreme Court Rulings. For example, the Research, Development and Evaluation Commission (RDEC) of Executive Yuan or the Control Yuan can be assigned to do the job. However, on the other hand, the Supreme Court always stands on the side of protecting human rights against government activities, sometimes the rulings might lead to government activities unworkable as we can see from the cases of the Rulings 400 and 440. How to balance the issue of protecting citizen’s rights and governability of the administrative agencies is one of the key problems needed to be solved in order to realize democratic governance in the future.
    Reference: Buchanan, J. M. and G. Tullock (1962). The Calculs of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
    Calvert, R. L., M. D. McCubbins, et al. (1989). “A Theory of Political Control and Agency Discretion.” American Journal of Political Science, 33(3): 588-611.
    Carrington, K. (2005). “Is there a need for control?” Public Administration Quarterly, 29(1/2): 140-161.
    Carpenter, D. P. (2003). “Why Do Bureaucrats Delay? Lessons from a Stochastic Optimal Stopping Model of Agency Timing, with Applications to FDA.” In Politics, Policy, and Organization: Frontiers in the Scientific Study of Bureaucracy, Meier, K. J. and Krause, eds. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
    Coase, R. H. (1988). The Firm, the Market, and the Law. Chicaga: University of Chicago Press.
    Cooke, J. E., Ed. (1961). The Federalist Paper, #51, Wesleyan University.
    Davis, K. C. (1971). Discretionary Justice: A Preliminary Inquiry. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
    Downs, A. (1967). Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
    Dworkin, R. (1978). Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press.
    Eckstein, H. (1975). “Case Study and Theory in Political Science.” In F. I. Greenstein and N. W. Polsby (Ed.), Strategies of Inquiry. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
    Epstein, D. and S. O'Halloran (1994). “Administrative Procedures, Information, and Agency Discretion.” American Journal of Political Science, 38(3): 697-722.
    Ferejohn, J. and C. Shipan (1990). “Congressional Influence on Bureaucracy.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 6(Special Issue): 1-20.
    Forde-Mazrui, K. (2007). “Ruling Out the Rule of Law.” Vanderbilt Law Review, 60(5): 1945-1557.
    Frederickson, H. G. and F. Marini (1998). Public Administration, New. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
    Galligan, D. J. (1986). Discretionary Powers: A Legal Study of Official Discretion. London: Oxford University Press.
    Gerring, J. (2004). “What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?” The American Political Science Review, 98(2): 341-354.
    Gerring, J. (2007). “Is There a (Viable) Crucial-Case Method?” Comparative Political Studies, 40(3): 231-253.
    Goldstein, H. (1963). “Police Discretion: The Ideal versus the Real.” Public Administration Review, 23(3): 140.
    Goodnow, F. J. (1990/2003). Politics and Administration. Transaction Publishers.
    Hammond, T. H. and J. H. Knott (1996). “Who Controls the Bureaucracy?: Presidential Power, Congressional Dominance, Legal Constraints, and Bureaucratic Autonomy in a Model of Multi-Institutional Policy-Making.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 12(1): 119-166.
    Hardin, G. (1968). "The tragedy of commons." Science, 162(Dec.): 1243-1248.
    Karl, B. (1987). "The American Bureaucrat: A History of Sheep in Wolves Clothing." Public Administration Review, 47(1): 26-34.
    Kelly, M. (1994). “Theories of Justice and Street-Level Discretion.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 4(2): 119-140.
    Kelly, S. W. (1993). “Discretion and the service employee.” Journal of Retailing, 69(1): 104-126.
    Kettl, D. F. (2000). “Public Administration at the Millennium: The State of the Field.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 10(1): 7-34.
    Key, S. (1997). “Analysis Managerial Discretion: An Assessment Tool to Predict Individual Policy Decisions.” International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 5(2): 134-155.
    Krause, G. A. (2003). “Agency Risk Propensities Involving the Demand for Bureaucratic Discretion.” In Politics, Policy, and Organization: Frontiers in the Scientific Study of Bureaucracy, Meier, K. J. and Krause, eds. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
    Langbein, L. (2004). Bureaucratic Discretion and Accountability: Complements or Substitutes? Paper presented at 2004 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago.
    Langbein, L. I. (2000). “Ownership, Empowerment and Productivity: Some Empirical Evidence on the Cause and Consequences of Employee Discretion.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19(3): 427.
    Leys, W. A. R. (1943). “Ethics and Administration Discretion.” Public Administration Review, 3(1): 10-23.
    March, J. G. and H. A. Simon (1958). Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
    McCubbins, M. D. (1985). “The Legislative Design of Regulatory Structure.” American Journal of Political Science, 29(4): 721-748.
    McGregor, J. (1996). “From the State of Nature to Mayberry: The Nature of Police Discretion.” In J. Kleinig (Ed.), Handled with Discretion: Ethical Issues in Police Decision Making. Lanham. MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
    McKelevy, R. D. (1976). “Intransitivities in Multidimensional Voting Models and Some Implications for Agenda Control.” Journal of Economic Theory, 12: 472-482.
    Merton, R. et. al (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure. N.Y: The Free Press.
    Moe, T. M. (1990). “Political Institutions: The Neglected Side of the Story.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 6(Special Issue): 213-253.
    Molot, J. T. (2002). “Reexamining Marbury in the Administration State: A Structural and Institutional Defense of Judicial Power over Statutory Interpretation.” Northwestern University Law Review, 96(4): 12-39.
    Monroe, K. R. (1991). “The Theory of Rational Action.” In K. R. Monroe, The Economic Approach to Politics: A Critical Reassessment of the Theory of Rational Action. NY: HarperCollins.
    Mueller, D. C. (1989). Public Choice II -A revised edition of Public Choice. NY, Cambridge University Press.
    Niskanen, J. W. A. (1971). Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
    North, D. (1995). Five Propositions about Institutional Change. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
    Olsen, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
    Osborne, D. and T. Gaebler (1992). Reinventing Government: How The Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming The Public Sector. N.Y: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
    Ostrom, V. (1989). The Intellectual Crisis in American Public Administration. Alabama: The University of Alabama Press.
    Riker, W. H. (1982). Liberalism against Populism. Prospect Height. IL: Waveland Press.
    Rohr, J. A. (1986). To Run a Constitution: The Legitimacy of the Administration State. Lawrence: University Press of Kansa.
    Rosenbloom, D. H. (1983). “Public Administrative Theory and the Separation of Powers.” Public Administration Review, 43(3): 219-227.
    Rosenbloom, D. H.; Kravchuk, R. S. (1986). Public Administration-Understanding Management, Politics, and Law in Public Sector. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
    Samuelson, P. A. (1954). “The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure.” Review of Economics and Statistics, 36(Nov.): 387-389.
    Scholz, J. T. (1991). “Cooperative Regulatory Enforcement and the Politics of Administrative Effectiveness.” The American Political Science Review, 85(1): 115-136.
    Self, P. (1993). Theories of Political Behavior. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
    Shavell, S. (2007). “Optimal Discretion in the Application of Rules.” American Law and Economic Review, 9(1): 175-194.
    Simon, H. A. (1946). “The Proverbs of Administration.” Public Administration Review, 6(1): 53-67.
    Spence, D. B. (1999). “Agency Discretion and the Dynamics of Procedural Reform.” Public Administration Review, 59(5): 425-442.
    Spence, D. b. (2003). “The Benefits of Agency Policy-making: Perspectives from Positive Theory.” In Politics, Policy, and Organization: Frontiers in the Scientific Study of Bureaucracy, Meier, K. J. and Krause, eds. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
    Steunenberg, B. (1996). “Agent discretion, regulatory policymaking, and different institutional arrangements.” Public Choice, 86(3-4): 309-339.
    Stevens, J. B. (1993). The Economics of Collective Choice. Boulder & San Francisco: Westview Press.
    Tullock, G. (1965). The Politics of Bureaucracy. Washington D.C.: Affairs Press.
    Varian, H. R. (1996). “Asymmetric Information.” In Intermediate Microeconomics: A Modern Approach. Chapter 35: 627-637.
    Warwick, D. P. (1981). “The Ethics of Administration Discretion.” Public Duties: The Moral Obligations of Government Officials. J. L. Fleishman. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University.
    Weingast, B. R. and D. A. Wittman (2006). “The Research of Political Economy.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy. B. R. Weingast and D. A. Wittman. NY: Oxford University Press.
    Wilson, Woodrow. 1887, “The Study of Administration.” Political Science Quarterly, 2(Also, J. M. Shafritz and A. C. Hyde, 1992 3rd eds. Classics of Public Administration, Harcourt Brace, pp.11-24).
    王叢虎等(譯)。政治體制中的行政法(K. F. Warren原著)。北京:中國人民大學出版社。
    朱金池 (2004)。警察與法治:裁量行為與課責機制。中央警察大學學報,第41期,頁15-26。
    朱金池 (2005)。警察組織課責機制之研究:以英美兩國市民監督警察為例。中央警察大學警政論叢,第5期,頁43-58。
    吳育巧 (2005)。中央健保局經營現況之研究--以代理人理論分析。國立台灣大學政治學系政府與公共事務碩士在職專班碩士論文,未出版。台北。
    吳瓊(譯)(2002)。公共行政的合法性—一種話語分析(O. C. McSwite原著)。北京:中國人民大學出版社。
    沈巋(譯)(2002)。美國行政法的重構(R. B Stewart原著)。北京:商務印書館。
    徐仁輝(2000)。公共選擇觀點下的民主行政。行政管理論文選輯,第14期,頁 27-42。
    陳敦源(2004)。人民、專家、與公共政策:民主理論下的「參與式知識管理」。 國家政策季刊,第1期第3卷,頁99-134。
    黃東益、陳敦源、施佳良(2009)。公共行政規範性根基的探索--2008年台灣公務人員「民主價值」的分析。2009 TASPAA「全球化下新公共管理趨勢與挑戰--理論與實踐」學術研討會,台灣公共行政與公共事務系所聯合會主辦,高雄。
    Description: 碩士
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0095256004
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[公共行政學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    600401.pdf169KbAdobe PDF829View/Open
    600402.pdf226KbAdobe PDF1101View/Open
    600403.pdf223KbAdobe PDF787View/Open
    600404.pdf230KbAdobe PDF699View/Open
    600405.pdf244KbAdobe PDF1100View/Open
    600406.pdf391KbAdobe PDF2016View/Open
    600407.pdf259KbAdobe PDF1331View/Open
    600408.pdf455KbAdobe PDF994View/Open
    600409.pdf173KbAdobe PDF865View/Open
    600410.pdf147KbAdobe PDF1098View/Open
    600411.pdf519KbAdobe PDF1405View/Open

    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

    社群 sharing

    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback